I think it's safe to say it's slower, but as I used to remind the engineers when they pushed back against releasing slow solutions when I was working as a liason between customers and engineering: "not working is infinitely slow".

It's easy to see how Microsoft wants this for the Surface Phone since it will allow customers to run x86 applications on their phone. If your choice is between not running an application and running it slowly, most people will always choose "slowly". Most Win32 software isn't high performance software. And a lot of the really computationally hard stuff is getting moved to GPU anyway. So for instance photoshop has shifted much of its filtering and canvas rendering to OpenCL/CUDA. The Snapdragon should have a perfectly adequate if not superior OpenCL benchmark compared to a low-end intel built in GPU. Same with games. Even if you take a pretty large performance hit on CPU cycles, usually it's the GPU bottlenecking not the CPU. So their magic emulator should natively execute all DirectX/OpenGL calls on the GPU anyway.

The Xbox team has done a great job of this on the Xbox One backwards compatibility for PowerPC RISC support on the Xbox One.

No. Imagine you have a candle and an airplane's landing lights. You only need 1 bit.

0 == 1 lumen1 == 1,000,000,000,000 lumens.

That's a trillion to one contrast ratio with one bit. If you want to be really pedantic contrast ratio isn't actually interesting because while 1:1,000,000,000,000 is a high contrast ratio, it's actually impressive because of the dynamic range not the ratio.

0 = 0 lumens1 = 1 photon

That would be an infinite contrast ratio. And also expressed by one bit but not what most people think of when they think of high contrast ratios.

I think with modern technology the promise of an anonymous ballot being guaranteed is flat out dead. Unless you go through a metal detector like at the airport to screen out all electronics someone will easily bring a phone into the ballot box and with consumer go pros being able to be hidden in a shirt if someone is motivated they'll be able to attain proof that you voted as directed.

Also voter intimidation in this fashion is extremely risky and unsuccessful. It only takes one person giving an anonymous tip that they are being *offered* incentives to sell their vote and you're screwed. In order to sway an election you would inevitably solicit someone who will rat you out. If you are being blackmailed, then you'll be sufficiently motivated to conceal your tracks and with modern technology almost certainly find a way to succeed.

Technology for electronic voting confirmation is trivial but we exclude it because we inaccurately are defending an attribute that is dead and gone due to technological change. I can already track my mail-in ballot. What they should do is offer an independent random tracker to every ballot, then when the election is over you could confirm your ballot was counted properly. And many people could anonymously publish their vote and vote hash to news organizations for exit polling. And if you request enough random samples they should converge on the same result as the total. If Reuters samples 50k volunteers and the outcome of those samples is off from the official tally then you can investigate further. You would have to maintain two separate databases to both respond "correctly" to spot checks but also tally differently. And hashing the total vote database vs. the spot checks would guarantee the data had been tampered.

Yes, but where will climate change cause flooding, where will it cause draught, how much water can utilities, dams and shippers expect, how tall does this seawall need to be, and where will the best places be to build are all very important questions. Regardless of global warming being caused by man or not, better predictive models help humans plan.

Ironically as a white person the only time I've ever been called racist is by white right wingers calling me racist for saying things like "Statistically black students of equal academic achievement are accepted to college at lower rates. So it makes sense to attempt to compensate for that bias with affirmative action."

Because safes were perfectly secure? Privacy and anonymity are recent cultural developments along with urbanization. Prior to urbanization the entire local government knew you by name, they didn't need any fancy face recognition database. And everybody in town knew your address, your interests, your religion, all of it.

The new plant life in the headline is from Global Warming melting ice. So you have to acknowledge AGW exists if you recognize that an area "twice the size of the US" has melted.

Also if you had RTFA you would have noted that the world can warm without increasing CO2. The plants themselves absorb heat unlike snow and the melting tundra also releases methane, a greenhouse gas substantially more effective at retaining heat than even CO2.

We need a Slashdot Bot which just responds to the word "entrapment" in a post and corrects the author.

You can honey pot legally The police can even sell you drugs and arrest you. It's not entrapment unless you can prove that they convinced you to do something that you wouldn't have done except because of their coercion. You could setup a pot stand on the street titled "weed sold here" and arrest you when you came up and tried to buy weed. The test is whether a normal law abiding citizen have been persuaded to commit the crime.

And none of that matters because you're talking about a *private company* supposedly entrapping people. It's perfectly legal to post copyrighted works online if you own the copyright without a password. It's even legal for a torrent to download it. What isn't legal is to then upload it to someone else. Leeching is legal. Sharing copyrighted works isn't.

I can post all of my photos online and you can't start printing copies of them just because I didn't put them behind a paywall.

I'm 50/50 split on this point. Their patent actually cites light cancelling as one of the features of the lightfield display chip that they use. *But* I can't tell if it's bullshit or not since as you say all of the demos appear to be purely additive. It's theoretically possible that they're able to build a lightfield that shunts incoming vectors if they do have a true lightfield manipulation device but... I've got my doubts.

Jesus, you can make anything sound suspicious if you spin it like that. How about this interaction.

Ex-Employee: "I'm applying for a job, would you please provide a statement for my new employer."Ex-Employer: "Here you go: 'Bob was a senior sales manager from June of 2013 to September of 2016. Bob led our sales team and was responsible for approximately $3 million in sales."Ex-Employee: "Actually it was $5m in sales, would you be willing to confirm and update?"Ex-Empoyer: "You were correct, I looked it up, it was $5m. Attached is an updated statement"

This is so common place that it's absurd to consider this a leak. That's the problem with the "wikileaks" brand. They release my chocolate chip cookie recipe and suddenly it becomes "why is he only using 1/3rd of a cup of flower... is he trying to sabotage US wheat producers?!?"